One of the reasons that business is so good for false prophets in politics these days is that it works so well – at least when it comes to raising money and winning elections.
And when your prophecies don’t come to pass, the way out is simple. You just point at the unicorn barn. That’s where the other guys – the bad guys who are too scared, too stupid or too corrupt – keep the solutions locked away.

Republicans won’t agree to an unconditional increase to the debt limit? Mint a $1 trillion coin, Mr. President. Supreme Court rules against conservatives on same-sex marriage? Simple: Just ignore the court.

Any criticism of the plans can be brushed away by calling for another unicorn release (FYI: they eat mostly Frankenberry and pepperoni pizza Combos): “winning the messaging war” or similar claptrap that imagines an unpopular point of view will garner more support in the midst of a vicious public struggle. Or that shame somehow still exists in American civic life.

None of this is to say that politicians don’t sometimes fail because they are scared (often), stupid (sigh) or corrupt (occasionally). Stipulated. But the unicorn wranglers are the ones who exploit the failing system by making impossible promises.

Last week, President Obama rustled up a whole herd of unicorns on the issue of gun control. To listen to the president, one would have assumed that there was a piece of legislation or a serious proposal under consideration that would have prevented the most recent campus killings.

In this version, Republicans are too scared, stupid and corrupt to allow this “common sense” legislation to advance. But that’s not the case. In recent years, Democrats have focused mostly on closing loopholes in federal background checks – especially on private sales.

But in none of the recent mass shootings that spur these occasional surges in media interest in gun control has the so-called “gun-show loophole” been a factor. There were lapses in the application of existing laws and failures to report obvious mental illnesses, certainly, but not one used a private sale to circumvent the law.

We had a similarly disjointed conversation after the 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn. Then, the focus was on banning certain weapons, and reinstating the lapsed “assault weapons” ban. But that turned out to be false prophecy, too. So the movement moved back to the background check argument.

The president knows about these disconnections. But, he argued Thursday, it is appropriate to politicize the moments that refocus public attention on the issue of gun laws. Well, maybe.

It’s certainly fine to use a searing incident to advance legislation to prevent its recurrence. But it’s neither wise nor appropriate to exploit a tragedy for achieving a substantially unrelated goal.

There’s no way to know how many or how few of the more than 11,000 homicides committed with firearms in 2013 (the most recent data available) were facilitated by a private sale. If you want to close the loophole, then find the victims of it and make martyrs of them. But don’t placate your political base and stoke contributors on the grounds that you have a solution. And certainly don’t do so with the deaths of citizens as props.

But who wants to tell voters a sad story about complicated public safety in a world where pistols outnumber functional families, of unraveled communities and the pharmacological palliatives pasted on top of them? Calling to regulate the firearms industry more sure sounds better.

There is one plan that might arguably prevent mass shootings. The president made passing reference to something in the vein when he mentioned that Australia had changed its laws in response to a mass shooting there. What he was referring to was a 1996 law that enacted a sweeping ban on many firearms, including existing ones, and set rigid requirements for gun licenses.

A ban and mass confiscations might work (or it might not) but at least it is on topic. But is the president really ready to lead the fight for a constitutional amendment to allow such a thing? Or wreck the remainder of his presidency in a legal fight over the Second Amendment he would surely lose?

Most likely, Obama will blame the bad guys in the other side and then fill the feedbags with Frankenberry. On to the next fundraiser, guys.

Sent from Joe's iPhone.

Our Columbine Comentator has some thought on Hillary:

"I'm getting ill watching Hillary's Town Hall Meeting on this morning's NBC's Today Show.  So far, she promises to cure all the ills caused by the mean old GOP, greatly diminish the mass murder issues through greater gun control, provide "FREE" two years of Community College education and means tested debt free four year college, so no person graduates in debt (but no mention of who pays for all this "FREE" stuff).  And, a few "tough" questions like Bill played the Saxophone what will you do musically when you are inaugurated, and what is your favorite libation to relax with?

Nice softball questions from a likely hand picked audience.  Great for Hillary promotional event by The Today Show.


What Bill Whittle Loves About Donald Trump...

In the mailbox from Jonah Goldberg.

"I listened to Barack Obama’s remarks last night about the Oregon shooting. I will say this in the president’s defense: He is obviously sincere. No decent person on either side of the gun-control debate isn’t weary and wounded in his or her soul after these mass shootings. I can only imagine how Obama feels when he has to offer his condolences to the victims and their families, particularly when he’s invincibly confident that he knows the solution to the problem.

And that brings me to what makes him so infuriating. From the first days of his presidency, he has acted as if he has a unique and unimpeachable grasp of the right policy on every issue. When he says he’s open to ideas from other people, what he really means is he’s open to novel explanations for why he’s correct about everything. This certainty is dangerous for all sorts of reasons -- a point George W. Bush’s critics used to wax sanctimonious about with mechanical regularity. But one of the reasons it is so vexing in Obama is that it lets him play games with the truth in order to get what he wants.

For instance, he talked over and over again about how there are simple “commonsense” solutions that would protect gun rights. If only we could be like other advanced countries:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours. Great Britain. Australia. Countries like ours.

Well, do you know the state of gun rights in Great Britain and Australia? They are only marginally more robust than free-speech rights in Russia or Iran.

He also said that there’s less gun violence in states with stricter gun-control laws. I don’t want to steal Charlie Cooke’s food bowl, but come on. Compare Washington, D.C., or Chicago to Burlington or Dallas. Yes, gun violence went down in New York City, but gun violence had been very high with the same gun-control laws. Stop and frisk, which liberals despise, had a lot more to do with declining gun deaths than gun control did. The most relevant gun-control rule in the Oregon shooting was the one that prevented law-abiding people from having guns on a “gun free zone” campus.

So when he says it’s okay to “politicize” these tragedies, he means it in full. When Obama engages in politics, he distorts the truth, demonizes his opponents, and seeks any other weapon that may be near to hand. He does this because he sees politics not as a realm for compromise, but the means by which he achieves what he wants, because what he wants is the only right and just thing."

Obama Syria Debacle

It is amazing that a President and his administration could take the famouort.  We owe more money to China than any other country on earth.  Our economy is so weak that we have we have staged slowest and puniest recovery ever experienced and it is still in an endemic status.

Obama and his cult has managed to waste the lives of thousands of our armed hero with his clumsy and and treacherous surrender of our hard earned presence in Iraq.  They now even allow a ragtag group of Islamist to kick our ass in Syria while we kiss their ass in all parts of our nation.  If you have any doubt, simply Google:   Muslims in Dearborn MI

Charles Krauthammer explains clearly what a fool we have in the Oval Office. There are
fools all around us...but none are as dangerous as one who is in charge of a once great nation and who is outsmarted, tricked and incompetent at virtually every turn of events.

"If it had the wit, the Obama administration would be not angered, but appropriately humiliated. President Obama has, once again, been totally outmaneuvered by Vladimir Putin. Two days earlier at the United Nations, Obama had welcomed the return, in force, of the Russian military to the Middle East — for the first time in decades — in order to help fight the Islamic State."

Makes you want to weep.
Consider: When Obama became president, the surge in Iraq had succeeded and the U.S. had emerged as the dominant regional actor, able to project power throughout the region. Last Sunday, Iraq announced the establishment of a joint intelligence-gathering center with Iran, Syria and Russia, symbolizing the new "Shiite-crescent" alliance stretching from Iran across the northern Middle East to the Mediterranean, under the umbrella of Russia, the rising regional hegemon.

Click HERE Fro Charles's full analysis.

Who are the real racists? From Joe.

A cop who had just become a father was killed in the line of duty at South Carolina mall. A suspect, Jarvis Hall, has been arrested in relation to the crime.
‘What would be the reaction if the shooting had gone the other way???  No mention in the Main stream Media that ANOTHER black person shot and killed a white police officer.  How much publicity would have arisen if it had been a white on black murder??  How fast would our President have decried white police brutality??  How indignant would the black community become, childllike chanting things like “police brutality; black lives count; hands up, don’t shoot?”  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be screaming into every nearby microphone.

“Who are the real racists???  It’s the jump to conclusion, victimizing MSM, liberal ideologue's, our president, and our Dept. of Justice."

Read the full story with the link below

In case you missed O'Reilly on bears repeating!!

Why Grandpas Are Better ?

Have you ever wondered what the difference is between Grandmothers and Grandfathers? Well, here it is:
There was this loving grandfather who always made a special effort to spend time with his son's family on weekends. Every Saturday morning he would take his 5-year-old granddaughter out for a drive in the car for some quality time -- pancakes, ice cream, candy-- just him and his granddaughter.

One particular Saturday, however, he had a terrible cold and could not get out of bed. He knew his granddaughter always looked forward to their drives and would be very disappointed.

Luckily, his wife came to the rescue and said that she would take their granddaughter for her weekly drive and breakfast.

When they returned, the little girl anxiously ran upstairs to see her grandfather who was still in bed. "Well, did you enjoy your ride with grandma?" he asked.
"Not really, PaPa, it was boring. We didn't see a single asshole, queer,
piece of shit, horse's ass, socialist left wing Obama lover, blind bastard, dip shit, Muslim camel humper, peckerhead or son of a bitch anywhere we went. We just drove around and Grandma smiled at everyone she saw. I didn't have any fun at all."

Almost brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

"Keep Pushing Guys--the dumbshits can't remember their middle names !!!

It Is Just Great Here!! Read Ben Stein's note to you.

 Ben and Pecky

"This has been a quiet day. I have been feeling poorly and have been mostly lying in bed thinking.

First, I keep thinking that it’s a miracle that I live in America and live now, right now, when we have peace and air conditioning. I keep wondering what my ancestors in some pitiful shtetl in Russia would have thought about my life. They could not have even remotely understood it or imagined it.

I have indoor plumbing, an immense swimming pool, two beautiful dogs, and basically can eat whatever I feel like eating."


Read Ben's total entry:  Click HERE

Wayne Allen Root on Trump and his story

Trump's Mouth is a Nuclear Weapon

"The Democrat Party is riddled with socialists, Marxists and communists hell bent on "fundamentally changing America." The Democrat Party is filled with frauds (see Obama, Jonathan Gruber and the lies used to sell Obamacare)… traitors (see Obama and John Kerry and the new Iran nuclear treaty)… thieves and con-men (see Hillary and the Clinton Foundation)… reckless wasters of taxpayer money (see Obama's Kenya trip that cost us over $50 million dollars for one day in a country that offers America NOTHING)… and outright criminals (see Hillary's upcoming criminal indictment and Obama's use of the IRS to target, persecute and even attempt to imprison political opponents and critics)." 

Read Waynes full article;  Click HERE

Saudi Arabia Takes ZERO Refugees!!


While Europe takes the burden of the migrant crisis

And, just how long before these refugees jump on our entitlement band wagon? The last time I looked a startling 95% of all immigrant families with children were receiving Federal benefits, so it is likely that 100% of these refugees will become wards of our  taxpaying
citizenry! When will the Arab States step up???

Another frightening aspect is that thousands of those refugees being welcomed to European boarders are actually heading for the entitlement nation of the United States of American!  Once they settle into Germany an other they will obtain travel Visas, take a vacation trip to Canada or the USA and will then disappear into our welfare state and into wallets of our taxpayers.

Scarier just try to guess how many Islamist terrorists are being filtered into the human flow of Muslims seeking to leave the mid-east.  There is no way in hell that the travelers can be filtered for accepting only those seeking peace.  We are naked to prevent it...expecially when we have a nutless incompetent in the Oval Office.



Check out the entire story CLICK HERE


CHECK THIS OUT !!! From 25 years ago!!!

From our Political Buddy, Henry Cole. Thanks Hank. Great Piece !!


Seated at the table from left:   US Secretary of State   John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister   Mohammad Javad Zarif 

Secretary of State John Kerry's daughter, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry ( Kerry's younger daughter
by his first wife), married Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed , an Iranian physician in 2009.

Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian's Persian birth name is Behrooz Vala Nahid but it is shortened and Americanized in the media to Brian Nahed. At the time of his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was no mention of Nahed's Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)'s birthplace and starts his biography from his college years.

Guess who was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry's daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed?  Javad Zarif's son. Papa Zarif is the current minister of foreign affairs in the Rouhani administration. He was Kerry's chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.
American citizens are supposed to believe this deal being hawked by Barrak Husein Obama , that was negotiated by John Kerry with his son-in-law's best man's father , is the best thing for the USA?

Nepotism: the corrupt practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends.
                                                 SMILE GODDAMMIT!!!!

Joe's take on Friedman.

Hey Fredo,

 Good piece on Milt Friedman's position on illegal immigration. However, at the date of this video Milt was still under the opinion that illegal's did not qualify for our various entitlement programs. How different would his outlook have been if he were aware of today's situation where illegal's claim entitlements in the BILLIONS, legally and through subterfuge? All supported by our liberal friends as justifiable because of the purity of its' motives, with little or no regard for its' actual results. Nor, does "their" position consider the staggering impact on our economy of the costs of the criminal activities and subsequent incarceration of these illegal's.

The USA's national debt is now in excess of $18 TRILLION (94.3% of our GDP in 2010), and our unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs exceed an ever more stunning $123 TRILLION (almost $1 Million per household)!!!
When Bush entered office the debt was $5.6 TRILLION, when he left just shy of $10 TRILLION. So far under President Obama the debt has increased by more than $8 TRILLION to its' current level of more than $18 TRILLION. That $8 TRILLION increase is more than the sum total created under all the administrations proceeding President Bush's. Consider that if one spent $1 MILLION PER DAY since the birth of Christ the total spent would be less than $1 TRILLION (approximately $737 BILLION)!

 Mr. Friedman, David Walker (former Comptroller General), the Concord Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, the Peterson Foundation, the Brookings institute, and noted historian and Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution Victor Davis Hansen, to note just a few qualified persons of interest, all agree that the debt and unfunded liabilities present an unsustainable predicament, and are the greatest known threats to our very sovereignty! We must take steps to eliminate/significantly reduce this untenable predicament NOW! Obviously, returning to a policy of zero entitlement payments to illegal's would not eliminate this threat, isn't it just as obvious that providing entitlements to millions of person's who have not participated in the funding for the various programs greatly exacerbates this, potentially fatal to our society as we know it, dilemma? And, I wonder how many illegal's seeking these benefits, and who magnify our violent crime rates, would stop invading our Country.

Once again, liberals support their open borders policies as being noble in their motives, but fail to acknowledge the resulting seriously disastrous financial and security implications of these misguided positions. There you have the major difference in liberal and conservative thinking. One evaluates positions upon their motives, and the other evaluates upon the actual results of proposed or adopted policies. I'll let you guess which attitude defines one's political leaning.

Your pal,

Too bad Obama went to law school instead of studying economics.  His constitutional legal studies only worked to convince him he did not have to serve to uphold our founding document.  I miss Milton Friedman..but he lives in his legacy of teachings left to us.  It would really be nice if even some our congressional reps would do a little economic study.

Take a short course in immigration from Milton.

Two Americas Explained

     Who better to explain America than Lou Holtz?  This message has been attributed to Lou, but because it is on the internet it could have been written by Clyde Lipshitz in a North Chemung basement apartment.  Whoever is the author had a damned good view of what is happening in our good ol' USA.
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.

It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

“Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”

Is it our last chance or last gasp?? From the mailbag.

From your conservative libertarian capitalist buddy.  Echoes of both Milt Freidman and Ayn Rand.

American Thinker
21 August 2015
Trump's Appeal: A New Beginning, or the Last Gasp of America?
by Craig Schwartz
Our economy is failing, and politics is in complete gridlock.  Democrats can't articulate the difference between Democrats and Socialists.  Republicans have no idea how to defend capitalism or even if they should.  We have reached what Ayn Rand predicted 50 years ago in "The Obliteration of Capitalism": "It is true we are not a capitalist system any longer: we are a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another."
We are reaching the end of the mixed economy's utility and support. The poor no longer see further gains in benefits, as entitlements are going bankrupt.  The middle class have been looted and have not seen wage increases in years.  The rich face the highest tax rates of the world.  Cronyism has evolved from simple pork-barrel spending to buy votes to complex structures like the Clinton Foundation.  With $18 trillion in debt, $100-plus trillion in unfunded liability, and the end of quantitative easing, cronyism is now fighting over a shrinking pie.  The intensity of the fight is creating even more gridlock.

Offered for the 2016 election are three conventional options of Bernie Sanders's Socialism, Hillary Clinton's mixed economy with more statism, and a Republican mixed economy status quo.  Also emerging are two alternatives.  One option comes from the altruistic moral justification for "social justice," supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.  The thinking is that if redistribution of wealth is moral, why wait for government to spread the wealth?  This is taking the form of rising crime rates, looting, riots, and vilifying the police.  Under certain circumstances, this could evolve into widespread anarchy.

The other option, distinct from all the rest, is the campaign of Donald Trump and the return to capitalism.

 Most Republicans are turned into babbling idiots as they attempt to reject Democrats' arguments for social justice, fair share, redistribution of wealth, and environmental justice.  Donald Trump's appeal is that he is advocating for capitalism not only because it works, but because it is moral.  His statements that he is proud to be successful and that he is proud to be rich (and in fact, very rich) and his campaign tagline of "Make America Great Again!" are all moral statements.  He is an advocate for egoism, the interests of hardworking Americans, and the self-interest of the United States of America.  These are moral statements implicitly rejecting the code of altruism asserting that self-sacrifice of individuals and the country is a moral duty.< /div>
The media is full of speculation that the appeal of Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina comes from their status as Washington, D.C. outsiders.  I think that Trump's appeal is that he connects to the sense of life of America.  Ayn Rand said that if America is to be saved from destruction from the statists, she will be saved by her sense of life.  The Trump campaign may be the beginning of what that process looks like.

Trump appeals to the America I knew growing up.  Americans are optimists.  They take initiative, they have a can-do attitude, they can solve and create anything, and they admire achievement.  Americans are independent, proud, and generally happy.  America is the home of the self-made man, where money is made, not looted or obtained through political favor and plunder.  Americans are not blindly obedient, and they are defiant and will not be pushed around.  That is the attitude that Donald Trump has captured.
What America needs is not conservatives, as there is nothing left to conserve.  America needs radicals for capitalism who have a conviction that not only does capitalism work, but it is moral.  We also need to return to a constitutional republic as originally intended by our Founders.

I want to vote for a presidential candidate who can make with conviction this statement from Ayn Rand: "[The United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world."  

Donald Trump is showing the way and stimulating the real debate for the survival of America. If others follow his lead, it could be a new beginning for America. If not, it could be our last gasp before we sink to a full totalitarian state with only an illusion of freedom.

[Craig Schwartz is a retired business director of a Fortune 100 company, is active in the Tea Party, and has been involved in the study of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism for over 30 years.] 

Kind of sums up the two ideologies:


Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were walking Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. Trump gave the homeless... person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Trump 's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.00

Now, do you understand the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal Progressive .

Black Mother talks to her son. Caution! Very vivid language and strong.

We need a few million more black mothers to echo her lecture.

"God Dammit Bill, just how long will I be in here?"

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

Just another example of goverment screwup ! How US Sugar Policies Just Helped America Lose 600 Jobs

It is no secret that liberals hate big business, entrepreneurship, profits, capitalism and would sell their soul for an increase in taxes on the wealthy and confiscating the profits of producers to give to the non-producers.  Government subsidy to sugar producers has been one of the longest and most protected government interventions for 50 years. Look what it has done!!!

America's Favorite Cookie Is Moving to Mexico!!!

The manufacturer of Oreo cookies recently announced plans to move production of Oreos from Chicago to Mexico, resulting in a loss of 600 U.S. jobs.
This should be a wake-up call to defenders of the U.S. sugar program and other job-destroying trade barriers.
The leading ingredient in Oreos is sugar, and U.S. trade barriers currently require Americans to pay twice the average world prices for sugar.
Sugar-using industries now have a big incentive to relocate from the United States to countries where access to their primary ingredient is not restricted.
Read the rest of the story HERE

I thought you might be interested----

It is interesting to read the news in a newspaper published in Iran.  The link below is a link to a the
"Iran Daily" a popular online publication with English translation. The articles certainly are from a perspective totally different from what we experience with the mainstream media mess here in the ol' USA.  Click HERE

Another Surge in Student-Loan Risk

 Enrollment in plans that cap student-debt payments as a share of borrowers’ incomes has grown 56% over the past year, the Education Department said Thursday. As of June 30, almost 3.9 million borrowers under the federal government’s main student-loan program were enrolled in the plans.

Borrowers can reduce their monthly payments and eventually have debts forgiven in many cases—especially if they choose Obama-favored careers in government or the non-profit sector. Earlier this week the Journal reported on a Florida lawyer who plans to stick taxpayers with a $300,000 unpaid bill.

Yet even with recent expansions in such plans allowing borrowers to avoid timely repayment, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Thursday that a full 21% of student-loan borrowers are still more than 30 days delinquent. Naturally, Hillary Clinton has decided that the problem in higher education is that it needs more taxpayer Efunding...!!!   



Hillary's track record as Sec. of State is as about as lackluster as you can imagine....but that is current history.  If you examine her track record in ancient history you will find an even worse record of sleaze, duplicity and failure.  Below is a a portion of the recent best seller, "Clinton Cash".   It is a penetrating probe into the murky waters of the Clinton corruption. Hard to imagine that she could be considered to be the "leader of the free world"!

"When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was:

* She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

* She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken

Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky,, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

* Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for lying under oath to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

* Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.

* After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

Now we are exposed to: the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe will fall next. " 

But to her loyal fans - "what difference does it make?"

( If U haven’t already done so , take the time to read the book “ Clinton Cash “ – an eye-opener to Bill & Hillary’s corruption.


Monica Crowley is a shrewd and experienced news analyst and rarely off base when when it comes to her views on the political landscape.  She seems to be spot-on with her latest observations.

Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic nominee for president. Yes, the conventional wisdom is that she is still the prohibitive favorite, armed with big money, big connections, and the Big Dog, Bill. But the so-called “wisdom” is “conventional” for a reason.

As a result of endless sordid scandals and predictably Clintonian evasions, her poll numbers on everything from favorability to trustworthiness are in a nosedive. A battery of new polls in key swing states such as Colorado and Iowa show her losing to a number of GOP challengers.

She’s also taking incoming from the left, particularly from Vermont senator and socialist Bernie Sanders, who is scoring major crowds and an increasing percentage of the Democratic vote, indicating that the leftist base sees him as a viable option and not merely a vehicle to register discontent with Mrs. Clinton.

Polls this early in the cycle can be unreliable. But they do indicate a significant downward trend for her that must have her campaign at DEFCON 3.

None of this, however, is her most serious problem. Instead, it’s something much closer to home, much more insidious, much more dangerous than anything else.

It’s President Obama. And he just made his move. Here’s how it’s likely going down:

The Clintons and the Obamas have a long history of bad blood, dating to the 2008 primary race. After Mr. Obama creamed her, he offered her the plum gig of secretary of state. Friends close, enemies closer. She tried to get her dirty tricks consigliere, Sidney Blumenthal, a top position in the State Department, which Mr. Obama pointedly denied. So she hired him anyway through the Clinton Foundation.

Through Mr. Blumenthal, she was fed all kinds of intelligence on global hotpots such as Libya, much of it inaccurate, as she circumvented traditional government communication chains via her private email server. What was she hiding from Mr. Obama? And why? Perhaps because she trusted Mr. Obama about as much as she trusted Bill.

Mr. Obama didn’t trust her, either. In a recently disclosed email, Mrs. Clinton complained that she heard “on the radio” that there was a “Cabinet meeting” that morning and wondered if she could attend. The secretary of state — fourth in line to the presidency — was frozen out, so she set up her own fiefdom.

Mr. Obama needs a successor whom he can control to ensure that the “fundamental transformation of the nation” continues. He cannot control either of the Clintons. In a revealing “tell” this week, he said, “In 18 months, I’m turning over the keys. I want to make sure I’m turning over the keys to somebody who is serious about the serious problems that the country faces and the world faces.”

He will therefore back the one person he knows will do his bidding: his vice president, Joe Biden, whom he summons to his side for every critical photo op, including the announcement of the Iran deal. There’s more going on there than just symbolism.

So here’s the likely plan: Mr. Biden will announce that he is running for president (the reported dying wish of his late son, Beau). After a respectable amount of time, Mr. Obama will announce that while he admires all of the Democratic candidates, Mr. Biden has earned his particular loyalty.

Following his presidential endorsement, Mr. Obama will then support Mr. Biden with the full weight of the White House, including the sophisticated technical infrastructure his campaigns used to win in 2008 and 2012. For years, Mrs. Clinton has begged Mr. Obama to turn it over to her, and he refused. He’s been saving it for someone else.

Mr. Obama will also use his considerable influence with black and Latino voters to support Mr. Biden, which may be enough to help him significantly.

But Mrs. Clinton is a survivor, they will say. The media protects her. True. But it will be a much different situation if she’s under criminal investigation by the Justice Department or worse, crippled by a Special Prosecutor or even an indictment.

Don’t think Mr. Obama will go there? He already has. Last week, the New York Times reported that two inspectors general from his administration recommended that the Justice Department open a “criminal” inquiry into her handling of classified material. The leak to the Times came from a “senior administration official,” which some have speculated was Mr. Obama’s own consigliere, Valerie Jarrett. The Times walked back some of the details, but the damage was done. If Mr. Obama did not want a DOJ criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton to go forward, he would not have let it go this far.

He wants the investigation, wants her nailed, wants her out. And he’s doing it, slowly, steadily.

The Clintons used to be champion Machiavellians. But in Mr. Obama, they look like they are being outmaneuvered — again — by the ultimate take-no-prisoners master.

Hillary is being given the Judas kiss by her former boss, a man loyal to no one but himself.
Monica Crowley, PhD



Hillary’s Student-Loan Plan Is a Desperate Gimmick for the Millennial Vote.

The hard truth on the student-loan crisis is that the problem is not being caused by a lack of money. It’s quite the opposite. A recent study by the New York Federal Reserve validated the long-held concerns of many economists and policy analysts alike when it found that “on average, for a $1 increase in the subsidized-loan cap, tuitions rose by as much as 65 cents.” In short, there is too much money available for the taking by colleges and universities because of generous government loans. This is driving up tuition prices. If the government just keeps increasing how much it is willing to lend students, where is the incentive for schools to control costs?

Read the full story on this silly Clinton gambit HERE

Iranian Negotiator Discusses Nuclear Deal

Be sure to read the captions as the negotiater is speakeing Arabic. 

POLL SHOWS HILLARY WAY UNDER WATER IN SWING STATES. (and you can see the polling info)

In a poll of voters in the six make-or-break swing states, Hillary Clinton now trails a generic Republican opponent by 13 points – a jump from last month’s 8-point deficit.
The poll, which will be released later today, was conducted for the pro-GOP group American Crossroads by pollsters Vox Populi. The telephone survey included 1,908 registered voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.

While the Republican nominee will certainly have greater liabilities than a generic standard bearer – though likely some advantages, as well – a deficit of this size is bad news for Clinton as she looks to head off other potential intra-party rivals.

Clinton’s best argument for the nomination is her own inevitability. If she is seen as a potential loser with the general electorate, Democrats could easily be forgiven for backing a candidate they like and trust more.

The reason for Clinton’s decline with the swing-state general electorate is not hard to discern. Trust for Clinton waned notably since last month’s survey. In July, 41 percent of respondents expressed at least some degree of trust for the former secretary of state. This month, that’s fallen to 37 percent.

Distrust of Clinton, which clocked in at 56 percent last month has climbed all the way to 60 percent. It’s bad enough to be 23 points underwater on trustworthiness in general but maybe worst of all is that 47 percent this month said they “completely distrust” Clinton.

Clinton’s net favorability fell sharply, too. She was 15 points below the beam last month. This time, it’s at negative 21 percent. That doesn’t necessarily reflect her potential vote share since people will sometimes (albeit rarely) vote for a candidate they do not like or trust, but -23 on trust and -21 on favorable is a dog’s breakfast of an attribute set even at this early date.

Political Pundits frequently question the validity of polling.  They criticize the partisanship of the polling organization and also might complain about the size and nature of the of the selected respondents.  It might be interesting for you to check out the actual inside information of this poll that shows the Clinton plunge.  Click HERE

Some 20 presidential candidates are slated to make pitches over the course of the fair. On Saturday, former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., former Gov. Lincoln Chafee, D-R.I., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., take to the soapbox. Sunday will bring Ben Carson, and former Gov. George Pataki, R-N.Y., to the stage. Look out for other candidates milling about the grounds taking a look at how voters in the first caucus state are ranking their deep-fried politicking.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are expected to be at the Iowa State Fairgrounds Saturday, though neither is on the speakers’ schedule.

It's only fair.

An Interesting Piece FYI. Thanks to Mr. Rhodes for it.

The Clinton Meltdown

Given the breadth of her experience, you would think that Hillary Clinton’s scandal-management skills would be better by now. But instead, here we are with Clinton suddenly trailing in a New Hampshire poll just as the FBI seizes her secret email server and her lawyer’s backup files.

Remember, that’s the same server that she defiantly told reporters five months ago “will remain private.”

Recall that Clinton was refusing a request from Congressional investigators that she make the server available to a neutral third party for review. Clinton’s reason was that “no one wants their personal emails made public.” Well, sure. But not everyone sets up a “homebrew” server to circumvent federal email policies.

And what about the rules – especially about classified information? Clinton was absolute: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

As has been the case with many Clinton claims about the scandals that have steadily stalked her candidacy, that turned out not to be true.

Clinton’s claim that she had destroyed the evidence – more than 30,000 emails she says were strictly personal – that she claimed would have exonerated her always sounded fishy. Wouldn’t prudence demand retaining the evidence you say would clear you? But her refusal to let anyone substantiate those claims rendered the evidence destruction argument absurd.

The good news for Clinton is that the FBI investigation is focused on the least politically damaging part of the scandal: violation of the email policies themselves. It’s embarrassing for Clinton and could even end up with her facing criminal charges.

But it’s far better for her to have the server in the hands of the Justice Department than of congressional investigators who would be scanning for more than just classification breaches. Being accused of letting enemies steal classified information because she wanted control over her email would be potentially debilitating, but far less so than evidence that might arise about payola allegations from her time in office.

She can be happy for now that the server is in a safe place, but also has to worry what a judge might say or do. This could get out of control quickly. She can be pretty confident that her system functioned as designed and allowed for the permanent deletion of emails. But what if somebody finds a way to recover some? What if the server ends up in Trey Gowdy’s hands?

And it all could have been avoided. Had Clinton agreed to an independent review months ago, or, even better, at the time she first surrendered what she says are all of her work emails, this would be long in the rearview mirror.

Instead, Clinton is being publicly dragged to the place were good sense should have taken her from the beginning and she arrives with her earlier claims and her reputation for accountability in tatters. Hillary Clinton touts the history-making nature of her candidacy. One milestone she obviously hadn’t expected to need to make: First major-party nominee to win while the subject of a federal criminal investigation.


t has shaped up as another bad week for inevitable Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Socialist independent Bernie Sanders is now ahead of her in New Hampshire, according to a new Boston Herald survey: “Sanders leads [Mrs.] Clinton 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters , the first time the heavily favored Clinton has trailed in the 2016 primary campaign, according to the poll of 442 Granite-Staters.” Vice President Biden, who hasn’t even announced a campaign, picks up 9%.

Meanwhile, the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling finds Mrs. Clinton running narrowly behind four Republicans in Iowa: Ben Carson, 44% to 40%; Mike Huckabee, 44% to 43%; Scott Walke r, 44% to 43%; and Marco Rubio, 43% to 42%. With just six electoral votes, the Hawkeye State isn’t exactly a must-win. But weakness in a state Democrats have carried in six of the past seven presidential elections (2004 was the exception) can’t be a good sign.

What can all of this guarantee us to see in the coming weeks. With all of obvious lies, sleaze and plunging polling you will most likely see Hillary become an attack machine with bared fangs and focusing appeals to the non-thinking liberal base that is her stronghold. That segment of her fan club shouts, "Don't clutter my mind with facts---my mind is made up!" and she will take full advantage of it. She will begin a pointed attack with her  imaginary "War On Women"  which she pretends that Republicans endorse. She will find a way to suck up to blacks, Hispanics, teachers, government employees, unions in general, welfare recipients, and youngsters who have never taken and economics course.

From the mailbag??

Dear Fred.     Were you aware of this?

Joe.   (Your Columbine Correspondent)


Yes.   I had seen a similar piece a while back.   It is sickening and what is REALLY scary is when you look at the breeding patterns of Muslims.  The men take four wives minimum..even bedding and marrying first cousins. Add to that the fact that their birth rate, globally, is far higher that any other country.  They breed like jack rabbits and famous for not discriminating against other species!

In 2006, countries with a Muslim majority had an average population growth rate of 1.8% per year (when weighted by percentage Muslim and population size).[1] This compares with a world population growth rate of 1.12% per year.[2] As of 2011, it is predicted that the world's Muslim population will grow twice as fast as non-Muslims over the next 20 years. By 2030, Muslims will make up more than a quarter of the global population. By the year 2100, about 1% more of the world's population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%).[3]

Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman. Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5). Worldwide, Jewish fertility (2.3 children per woman) also is above replacement level. All the other groups have fertility levels too low to sustain their populations: folk religions (1.8 children per woman), other religions (1.7), the unaffiliated (1.7) and Buddhists (1.6).

I will not be long before they can breed them right into being able to have
an Imam majority leader in the House of Representatives.  We already have a closet Islamist in the Oval Office !

You can tell there is an election coming.

From the mailbag: "Confederate Flag Protests in South Carolina."

"Great to know that black racism will finally be ended by       
  pulling down the Confederate Flag. 

 Blacks can now be free to keep their families together, value education,  support their own, stop the black-on-black murders,  graduate high school, get married before having babies,
 stop crime in their neighborhoods, and accept white people for the values we instill in our communities too. 
I'm glad the problems have ended."  

I have been saying the same thing....

It was like listening to myself!  I have been saying the same thing for eight years.  Ben is my hero!

Chris Stirewalt Summary of the Debate.. Carly Stars!

You don’t win a debate like that one as much as you survive it.  And for the top of the
leaderboard, at least, no harm was done and quite possibly some good.  But if you had to pick one winner overall from Thursday’s debateapalooza, it’s easy: Carly Fiorina. She stood out on the earlier stage and didn’t have to get caught in any stampedes. It would be no surprise to see her in the main event in the next debate six weeks from now.

Donald Trump proved to be every bit himself, which was the right thing for him to do. He managed, though at times with some difficulty, to keep himself within the confines of the format. And he certainly lived up to his boast that he was not boning up on policy points before the debate. With the air of George Patton at a roller rink, Trump rolled through.

Jeb Bush didn’t exactly light the Cuyahoga River on fire, but he was solid citizen and did little to damage his status as the best receptacle for the hopes of the GOP establishment. Bush’s leaky answer on Iraq, however, cast some doubts that he has found a way to succinctly answer a question that will be with him always.

Scott Walker certainly looked like someone who could be president, which was his job for the night. Walker was steady and even found a few moments to show flair. He likely moved ahead in his bid simply by passing his first presidential plausibility test. And finding ways to bring Hillary Clinton into the fray was smart, indeed.
Ted Cruz tried to bring some Tumptastic flair, but he looked like a BLT next to Trump’s triple-decker bacon cheeseburger of outrage. Cruz didn’t find his first moment of deep connection until he spoke of his father’s redeeming salvation. But overall, he turned in a solid performance that will do his bid no harm.

The best individual performance was that of Marco Rubio, whose high-energy delivery, one-liners and policy riffs will undoubtedly win back some of the supporters who have drifted from his column of late. Rubio, like Walker, passed a key plausibility threshold.

Who would have thought that Donald Trump would not have been the angriest person on the stage? Rand Paul’s sourpuss routine was not exactly expected. It may have gotten him a bit more airtime, but it lijely wasn’t worth the price he paid.

Paul and Chris Christie’s eruptions over domestic surveillance were epic. It certainly gave Christie the chance to show the blast-furnace temperament that he considers to be an asset. (It’s not.) But for New Hampshire national security voters torn between Christie and Lindsey Graham, it may be a help.

Ben Carson was perfectly endearing. He started unsteadily, but found his feet in the second half. Every dopey pundit who says it’s all about rage in the Republican Party ought to try explaining Carson’s enduring popularity.

Who would have thought that the Baptist preacher on the stage would be the one to bring pimps into the scene? Mike Huckabee was charming and showed passion. But unless and until he can find a fight to call his own, Huckabee will likely languish. On debate night, though, he did well for himself.

John Kasich had a built-in advantage with a debate on his home turf and he made the most of it. Kasich was wonky and tough by turns, but seemed to be playing it safe on a high-risk night.